Glenmoore Pennsylvania Construction Expert Witness Directory

Massachusetts Settlement Targets Mortgage-Backed “Homeowner Benefit” Agreements

April 08, 2026 — A.J. S. Dhaliwal, Mehul N. Madia & Maxwell Earp-Thomas - Sheppard
On March 11, Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell announced a consent order with a real estate-related lender’s subsidiary, and affiliated individuals resolving allegations that the company violated the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act by deceptively marketing mortgage-backed “Homeowner Benefit Agreements” to financially struggling homeowners. According to the complaint, the company offered homeowners relatively small upfront cash payments, typically less than $1,500, in exchange for a 40-year exclusive right to act as the listing broker if the homeowner later sold the property. The Attorney General alleged that the agreements also triggered substantial payment obligations upon other transfers, including death or foreclosure, and that the transactions were secured by recorded mortgages that could interfere with refinancing, home-equity access, or the ability to sell the home. The complaint further alleged that the company marketed the product to vulnerable consumers searching for loans or public benefits while obscuring the true nature of the transaction. Reprinted courtesy of A.J. S. Dhaliwal, Sheppard, Mehul N. Madia, Sheppard and Maxwell Earp-Thomas, Sheppard Mr. Dhaliwal may be contacted at adhaliwal@sheppard.com Mr. Madia may be contacted at mmadia@sheppard.com Mr. Earp-Thomas may be contacted at mearp-thomas@sheppard.com Read the full story...

Presumption of Prejudice Applies to All Affirmative Defenses Regarding Insured’s Failure to Comply with Post-Loss Policy Conditions

June 23, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
n a recent property insurance coverage dispute, an issue on appeal pertained to the “prejudice” jury instruction associated with the insured’s failure to comply with post-loss policy conditions. The trial court found that the prejudice only pertained to prompt notice and not other post-loss policy conditions. This was reversed on appeal as prejudice applied to ALL the post loss policy conditions that the insured failed to comply with, not just the prompt notice requirement. The prejudice presumption applies to all affirmative defenses regarding an insured’s failure to comply with post-loss policy conditions. Consider this discussion when dealing with an insurer raising prejudice as an affirmative defense to do an insured’s failure to comply with post-loss policy conditions, and the associated burdens of proof: On appeal, [the insurer] contends the trial court erred by instructing the jury that the presumption of prejudice was inapplicable to all of its post-loss obligation defenses except prompt notice. We agree. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Four Families Now Live in the Season Six Rock the Block Homes in Grantsville, Utah

April 20, 2026 — Hamlet Homes
SALT LAKE CITY, April 20, 2026 /PRNewswire/ -- The premier of Rock the Block season seven aired last Monday and is set in Las Vegas, Nevada. Rock The Block is HGTV's highest rated show. Last year, season six was set in Utah and had HGTV's highest rating yet, with over 14 million viewers. All episodes of season six were filmed in the Worthington Ranch community in Grantsville, Utah. The four homes on the show were built by Utah builder Hamlet Homes. During the show, the location of the four Rock The Block homes had to be kept secret and were surrounded by a locked gate. After over a year of being inaccessible, the Utah public was invited in May 2025 to tour the homes and help raise money together for charity. On May 30-31, 2025, Hamlet hosted a 'Rock The Block Party' where the public was able to walk through the homes made famous by the show. Hamlet Owner, VP of Marketing & Design Tami Ostmark shares stories from the show and her perspective of what it's like to be the builder on a national show like this. Ostmark was on set almost the entire time. "As expected, there were times when there was tension on the set. All four designers were super competitive with each other. It's amazing that the production team was able to produce the show as well as they did. I'm very impressed," said Ostmark. Another interesting point related to the show is how much work the local builder is responsible for. Some nights as many as 30 Hamlet team members worked through the night to keep up with the pace of production. "Each designer provided their own trusted carpenters to do finishing work. In two of the cases, designers' flew their favorite carpenters in to carry out their visions. Given the quick turnaround, it's not always practical for finishing work to be permanent. Sometimes, it just needs to look appealing on camera," said Ostmark. This is frequently referred to as 'TV Magic'. "When the show was over, Hamlet re-did any areas that required extra attention". The show really does shoot in only 7 weeks as depicted. This creates a fast pace that was very exciting to be a part of", continued Ostmark. All four of the homes featured on the show have since been purchased; four Utah families currently call them home. ABOUT HAMLET HOMES Hamlet Homes (www.hamlethomes.com) crafts quality customer-oriented townhomes and single-family homes located in attractively designed communities in Utah and Idaho. Since the company's founding in 1995, Hamlet has built over 5,000 homes in 80 communities. The company is a proud recipient of many awards on Sustainable Business & Design, Quality Builder Awards; recognized both locally and nationally. Named by the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce as the 'Veteran Owned Small Business of the Year, in 2019'. Hamlet has since been named several times to the Professional Builder's Housing Giants List and annual HOME AWARDS Best Customer Experience. Most recently in 2026, Hamlet was named Utah's 'Best of State for Real Estate Development and Utah Businesses 'Best Companies to Work For' for the 6th consecutive year.

The Grenfell & Champlain Towers: Risk Management Considerations in the Wake of Catastrophic Loss — A UK/US Comparison

June 02, 2026 — Eric M. Clarkson - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
1. Introduction As part of the multinational collaborative relationship between Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and Fenchurch Law, we continually find ourselves in conversations about the sometimes subtle but sometimes drastic differences between risk management and coverage considerations from one country to the next. These differences are often highlighted by the fallout from large catastrophic losses that are widely publicized and illuminate sometimes widespread risks and perils that many others may be facing in the coming years. The response of governments and their subdivisions to the needs of victims and/or commercial parties, and insurance markets’ evaluation of and reactions to catastrophic losses vary widely from country to country and jurisdiction. In this article, we discuss these responses and reactions in the cases of the Grenfell Tower Fire in London, England, and the Champlain Tower collapse in Surfside, Florida, within the United States. These two widely publicized losses involved different risk management and insurance considerations based on where they occurred. They also saw substantially different government responses and raised varied questions about what the next steps are for their respective commercial and insurance markets. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Eric M. Clarkson, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Clarkson may be contacted at EClarkson@sdvlaw.com

Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (6/24/26) – HUD to Fund AI Grants, Luxury Hotel Deal Investment Activity to Surge, ESPCs to Fund Energy and Infrastructure Improvements

July 06, 2026 — Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
In our latest roundup, data centers are exposed to climate change, commercial tenant sues CoStar, cities see opportunities in emerging sports markets, and more!

With deferred maintenance growing and capital dollars stretched thin, local governments are using ESPCs to fund energy and infrastructure improvements through future operational savings. (Vicky Uhland, Construction Dive)
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development is offering up to $3 million in grants for local governments to deploy automated permitting and building code systems. (Ryan Kushner, Construction Dive)
Luxury hotel deals are set to see a surge in investment activity due to strong fundamentals and strengthening capital markets. (Noor Adatia, Hotel Dive)

Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team

Wadsworth v. Regional Rail Partners — Verified Statements of Claim Under the Colorado Public Works Act

August 25, 2026 — Olivia Barden - Colorado Construction Litigation Blog
Editor’s Note: Wadsworth Revisited In August 2024, following the Colorado Court of Appeals’ decision in Ralph L. Wadsworth Construction Company, LLC v. Regional Rail Partners, we published Colorado Court of Appeals’ Ruling Highlights Dangers of Excessive Public Works Claims. At the time, the decision warranted a significant warning to contractors and subcontractors performing public work in Colorado. The Court of Appeals concluded that Wadsworth’s verified statement of claim improperly included unliquidated delay damages and that, because the claim was excessive, Wadsworth forfeited its right to recover the amounts included in the claim. We cautioned contractors to carefully scrutinize verified statements of claim and to avoid including unliquidated damages or amounts that were not yet due and payable. The Colorado Supreme Court has now reversed that decision. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Olivia Barden, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC

Supreme Court Rules Tariffs Unconstitutional: Why the Construction Industry Shouldn’t Expect Calm Just Yet

March 31, 2026 — Christopher Barnett - Construction Executive
The U.S. Supreme Court’s 6–3 decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump did what many expected: It held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. What few anticipated was the speed of what followed: Within hours of the ruling, the administration announced replacement tariffs under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, imposed a 10% global surcharge effective February 24, and signaled forthcoming Section 301 investigations against most major trading partners. For those in the construction industry hoping the Learning Resources ruling would restore market stability, the message was unambiguous. The constitutional question may be settled, but the market disruption is not. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Barnett, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the full story...

Seventh Circuit, With an Assist From the Illinois Supreme Court, Finds That “Pollution Exclusion” Bars Coverage For Emissions Allowed Under Regulatory Permit

April 20, 2026 — Jason Taylor - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law Blog
In Griffith Foods Int’l Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 24-1217 & 24-1223 (7th Cir. Mar. 13, 2026), the Seventh Circuit addressed the meaning and scope of a pollution exclusion in a standard-form commercial general liability insurance policy for underlying injuries caused by ethylene oxide (EtO) emissions. The insurance dispute arose out of underlying tort litigation involving bodily injury claims, including cancer, allegedly caused by emissions of ethylene oxide over a 35-year period from 1984 through 2019 by Griffith Foods International and later Sterigenics U.S. The pollution exclusion at issue generally barred coverage for “bodily injury” arising out of the discharge, dispersal, release or escape of smoke, vapors, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, toxic chemicals, or other irritants, contaminants or pollutants. Interpreting similar exclusions, the Illinois Supreme Court has previously held that the standard CGL pollution exclusion bars coverage for bodily injuries caused by traditional environmental pollution (essentially industrial emissions of pollutants), but not by more commonplace emissions (such as carbon monoxide from a residential furnace or excess chlorine in a backyard swimming pool). See American States Insurance Co. v. Koloms, 177 Ill. 2d 473 (Ill. 1997). In Griffith Foods, the District Court initially concluded that the pollution exclusion did not apply because the companies emitted EtO pursuant to a permit issued by the IEPA. The District Court reached this latter conclusion by applying Erie Insurance Exchange v. Imperial Marble Corp., 957 N.E.2d 1214 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011), an Illinois intermediate appellate court decision finding it ambiguous whether a CGL policy’s pollution exclusion barred coverage for emissions authorized by regulatory permit. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jason Taylor, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Taylor may be contacted at jtaylor@tlsslaw.com

GLENMOORE PENNSYLVANIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES